Mormon Coffee

It’s forbidden, but it’s good!

Archive for August, 2006

Mormon Missionaries Confront Misperceptions

The Chronicle Herald of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, recently ran an article about Mormon missionaries serving in that area. There have been a plethora of such articles in the past few weeks that have crossed my desk. From Canada to Australia, from Florida to the San Francisco Bay area and places in between, newspapers have been telling their readers about the Mormon missionaries walking the streets of their towns. All of the articles have been very similar in content. They talk about the missionaries’ long hours, their financial sacrifices, their limited contact with family back home (Christmas and Mother’s Day phone calls and once-a-week letters), and how apart from the fact that they are serving a mission these boys are just like any other young men — they like girls and fast cars.


In addition to the human interest feel-good elements reported in these articles, there are two additional themes that run through them all: rejection and misperception. With but one exception, all of the dozen or so articles I’ve read make a point of mentioning “slammed doors,” “rebuffs,” “rejection,” “abuse,” and “nasty people” who “yell” and “oppose” the LDS missionaries. Also with few exceptions these reports all tell readers that Mormonism is terribly misunderstood.

The “myths” highlighted in the articles range from people thinking Mormons churn their own butter to thinking Mormons aren’t Christians; but by far the most common reported misperception encountered by the missionaries has to do with polygamy.

Apparently, although the LDS Church has received plenty of recent media coverage all over the world that sets the record straight, people persist in asking LDS missionaries about their church and polygamy. Though the majority of the recent articles about Mormon missionaries mention the misperception along with the standard LDS Church disclaimer that polygamy is a thing of the past, the ChronicleHerald article goes a bit further. Here the reader is given the reason nineteenth-century Mormons practiced polygamy:

Many people are fascinated by the early history of the polygamous Mormons, and so the elders explain. In the early days of the Mormon experience, persecution was rampant. Mormon families moved from region to region, heading West in their wagon trains and running into trouble in many places.With Mormon men dropping like flies at the hands of lynch mobs, many widows were left with young children. They often banded together with other families for protection, becoming, in essence, families with one husband and multiple wives.

Only about two per cent of church members were polygamous back then, the elders say. Those who wanted to keep the polygamy tradition left the church, breaking off into splinter sects. A few such groups remain to this day. “They give (our) church a bad name,” says Elder Bevan.

There are three historical claims made or implied here:

  • Vast numbers of Mormon men were being killed off by enemies
  • This left more women than men; not enough men to allow for monogamous families
  • Only two percent of LDS Church members engaged in polygamy

We might be tempted to think Elder Bevan’s claims are his alone; however, when I toured Brigham Young’s Lion House in Salt Lake City earlier this summer the sister missionary leading my tour said the same thing. Tours at official LDS sites are scripted; therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that these historical claims are officially promoted by the LDS Church.

The question is, are the claims accurate?

Beginning with the percentage of early Mormons practicing polygamy, LDS historian Richard S. Van Wagoner wrote:

The most comprehensive study to date, detailing forty 1880 Mormon towns, found that almost 40 percent of St. George households were polygamous compared to 11 percent in nearby Harrisburg/Leeds. In Rockville only 10 percent was polygamous while 67 percent of Orderville was. In South Weber, north of Salt Lake City, 5 percent practiced polygamy, compared to nearly 30 percent of Bountiful. Other studies found a 15 percent incidence in Springville, while 63 percent of Mormon men in the Mexican colonies had more than one wife. (Mormon Polygamy: A History, second edition, page 91)

Furthermore, Mr. Van Wagoner wrote:

Some statements have suggested that the number was as low as 3 percent, but these estimates are usually based on figures given during the Reed Smoot hearings when a lower percentage was politically advantageous to the [LDS] church. Stanley S. Ivins in his analysis estimated 15-20 percent of Mormon families in Utah were polygamous. (Ibid., page 103, footnote 1)

Regarding the second historical claim, that polygamy was necessary because there were more men than women, LDS Apostle John Widtsoe wrote:

The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more females than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church…The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States… The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence. (Evidences and Reconciliations, pages 390-391)

In addition, Joseph Smith’s understanding of the reason for polygamy could not have been the same as that which the Mormon missionaries are promoting. Of the 33 documented women this founding Prophet of the LDS Church married, 11 of them had living husbands at the time they were (also) wed to Joseph Smith. (See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pages 4-7)

Finally, the claim that Mormon men were “dropping like flies at the hands of lynch mobs” or other enemies is just plain untrue.

It is true that 17 Mormon men and boys were killed at Haun’s Mill in Missouri in 1838, many years before polygamy became a known doctrine in the LDS Church. But beyond this there is no historical data to support or even suggest widespread murder of Mormon men. Though I searched for several hours, I was unable to find any specific documentation regarding the number of Mormon deaths due to persecution in the early Church. Given the emphasis the LDS Church places on its pioneer history and persecution, it is implausible to think that an actual murderous decimation of the early Church’s male population would go unreported.

So while claiming to clarify “myths” and “misperceptions,” Mormon missionaries, as representatives of the LDS Church, merely swap one set of misconceptions for another. They tell a story far more to their liking, but in the words of LDS Apostle Widtsoe, it “fails from lack of evidence.”

(For more information on the massacre at Haun’s Mill and early violence against Mormons click here.)

Warren Jeffs in Custody


Warren Jeffs, fugitive leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was apprehended last night near Las Vegas, Nevada. The Associated Press reports:

The leader of a polygamist Mormon sect, who’s been one of the country’s most sought after fugitives, is now behind bars…

Jeffs has been on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list since May, with a $100,000 reward being offered. He’s wanted in Utah and Arizona on suspicion of sexual misconduct. Authorities believe he arranged for older men to marry underage girls.

For a detailed online article about Jeffs and his arrest see Polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs arrested in Las Vegas in today’s Salt Lake Tribune.

Rolling Stone

by Eric Johnson


I just finished reading the recent book Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman, a Mormon historian. There is no doubt that this book on Joseph Smith is interesting with many good qualities. With that being said, though, let me say that it’s not the only book on Smith and early Mormonism that a person should read. Since Bushman is LDS, he certainly has presuppositions and an agenda, and while he does provide much truth, there are times he conveniently doesn’t mention important incidents. When he does, he often fails to adequately elaborate, thus softening the implications of his stories. Thus, I think this book ought to be read in conjunction with other biographies on Smith and the history of the LDS Church, of which there are many.

In fact, I could list a number of excellent books on this topic, but let me recommend three that I have enjoyed the most. First, The Rise of Mormonism (1816-1844) by H. Michael Marquardt, a book I read in conjunction with Rough Stone. Read side-by-side, I believe I was able to get a much more complete picture of Smith from both the LDS as well as Christian perspective. Second, I recommend One Nation Under Gods by Richard Abanes, which is a fascinating read and well worth the time. Finally, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon by David Persuitte is an excellent work that provides more background information on the life of Smith during the time he wrote “another testament” of Christ.

As I was looking at reviews from Amazon.com readers, I found it interesting how one LDS member said Rough Stone had “terrific historial (sic) background, but (it was) not for a new/weak member.” In fact, the reader said that “the blunt description of events and teachings makes me feel that this is not a book to be read by someone trying to stregthen (sic) their testimony of the prophet.” Mentioning the fact that Bushman says Smith Sr. was once a drunk, he added: “…while true, (this) doesn’t help to strengthen the weak of heart.”

This sums up the problem with the religion of Mormonism. If there is information that is considered non-faith-promoting, many Saints who trust mightily in their good feelings believe that negative information on LDS leaders ought to be avoided. But why study a person’s life unless you really want to understand the truth about this person? If Joseph Smith is, as Mormons believe, a prophet of God, then by all means everyone ought to consider this church (or one of the dozens of other churches claiming Smith as their founder). If, however, if it can be shown that this man was a fraud, then Mormonism and all other splinter groups ought to be avoided at all costs.

This just isn’t my opinion but that of 10th LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith who once said,

“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.” (Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1, page 188)

My suggestion for anyone is to consider both sides of an issue and come away with a conclusion that satisfies your research, regardless of what facts you might encounter.

Temple Tours and Al Takiyah

by Bill

My schedule didn’t permit me to attend the recent 2006 Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, but I was able to get the CD of one particular presentation that caught my attention. It had to do with truth-telling and Mormonism. The two presenters (Scot Denhalter and Ryan Wimmer) addressed the very real issue of how the Mormon Church has a history of evading the truth, not only to outsiders, but in some cases, even to their own people. Wimmer gave examples of how the LDS Church utilizes a type of Al-Takiyah, a practice among Muslims that involves lying in the name of Allah. Some Muslims feel it is permissible to deceive the Kafir (unbelievers) in order to protect themselves or Islam.


I personally experienced this LDS-Takiyah when in Sacramento recently. The LDS Church assured the local media that the Sacramento temple open house was meant to dispel all of “the myths” associated with these buildings and that church representatives were “prepared to answer any questions” the public had. The LDS public relations department said they were going to be as transparent as possible about their practices. Apparently the key words (pun intended) were “as possible.” The fact is, the media was not told the truth. The LDS Church never had any intention of showing all of the rooms. I have personally toured 16 different LDS temples and one room that is never part of the open house tour is the initiatory room where Mormon patrons are ceremoniously “washed and anointed.” Our tour group was told we could ask any questions. Yet, when I politely asked a few questions of our tour guide she complained to security that she felt “threatened.” Threatened? I merely asked why she was not forthright on our tour when I had earlier inquired about the Initiatory Room and the curtain in the Instruction Room. I went out of my way not to embarrass her publicly and stated my questions as politely and discreetly as I could. She admitted to me that she could only say what the Church told her to say. Twice she offered to get someone else to answer my questions. The second time I said that was not necessary and the conversation was over.

Oftentimes inquiries are side-stepped with the usual excuse that such topics are sacred to Mormons, but not secret. My suggestion to the LDS Church is, if they are going to take that approach then quit telling the media you are going to answer any and all questions. Instead of dispelling the myths the Mormon Church actually lends credence to the suspicion that it is not a trustworthy organization.

For more on this click here.

Cultivating Mormon Coffee

by Bill

We are pleased to announce that, as of today, the Mormon Coffee blog site will be an Internet outlet for Mormonism Research Ministry. Since Mormon Coffee’s inception, Sharon has been doing an incredible job posting pertinent information relative to Mormonism and we are excited that she has graciously allowed us to give this site a broader exposure through mrm.org. Sharon has definitely set a standard of excellence when it comes to high-quality information. We hope to maintain that standard as our other research associates participate with their comments and insight.

New and Improved King Follett Discourse


In 2004 the LDS Church brought its long-running City of Joseph pageant (Nauvoo, Illinois) to a close. In 2005 a new pageant premiered in the City of Joseph — Nauvoo Pageant: A Tribute to Joseph Smith. Along with the introduction of the new pageant, the LDS Church also offered tourists several historic vignettes which were performed at various times and locations around Nauvoo by pageant actors.

One of these vignettes was of special interest to me: King Follett Discourse. In this vignette Dallyn Bayles, the actor portraying Joseph Smith in the pageant, was to deliver portions of the famous sermon as Joseph Smith did in 1844. I went to the grove to watch and listen, bringing a copy of the King Follett Discourse text for comparison. I had expected a cleaned-up version of the sermon, with all the references to men becoming Gods and the council of the Gods (etc.) removed. I was happily surprised when Mr. Bayles did not shy away from much of the content of the sermon that is contradictory to Christianity. Though the sermon was edited for the sake of time, the true nature of the sermon was left intact. That was in 2005.

This year, 2006, I again attended the King Follett Discourse vignette. Mr. Bayles delivered a compelling performance which elicited many positive comments from the audience. Again I was surprised by the content of the sermon, but this time not happily. This time the sermon had indeed been sanitized. All of the openness of Joseph Smith’s teachings displayed in 2005 was gone.

The King Follett Discourse is a very important doctrinal sermon for the LDS Church. It was delivered at the church’s 1844 April General Conference; therefore it carries the heavy weight of authority. LDS theologian B. H. Roberts called the King Follett Discourse the “crescendo” of Joseph Smith’s life. The LDS Church described this year’s King Follett Discourse vignette like this:

The Prophet Joseph Smith will share portions of one of his last major discourses, a funeral sermon given in honor of Brother King Follett. In this speech the Prophet shared profound insights on the nature of God and the immortality of man.

Given this description, it’s hard to understand why the Prophet’s “profound insights on the nature of God and the immortality of man” were edited out of the sermon. For example, Mr. Bayles (as Joseph Smith) said,

It is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God. Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God–grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation…

Now look at what was left out of this portion of the sermon.

…it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon.) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power”–to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner, to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,–namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,–from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

Here, in this section of the discourse, are found Joseph Smith’s “profound insights on the nature of God”; but these teachings were not included in the performance. Look at a few additional omissions from Joseph Smith’s sermon:

  • To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.

  • In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.
  • God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
  • God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

These are just a sampling. Joseph Smith indeed taught “profound” doctrines on the nature of God via the King Follett Discourse — doctrines Mormonism still embraces today. Why do you suppose the LDS Church wasted the opportunity to share what they believe to be Joseph Smith’s prophetic insights on the nature of God with the vignette audience in Nauvoo?

To see scanned images of the entire King Follett Discourse from an LDS source click here.

Next Page »